1. Pauline Gorman
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Star
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into
grief or shock) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS”, published on 24 May 2017.

2. On its front
page, the newspaper had published a number of photographs of individuals who
had died, or were missing, following the terror attack which took place at a
pop concert in the Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017. One of the photographs was
of the complainant’s daughter, accompanied with the caption: “MISSING: Lucy
Cross”. The photograph and the caption were also published on page 4, in an
article which reported on the attack.

3. The complainant
said that her 13 year old daughter was not missing: her daughter, who is not
called Lucy Cross, had been at home at the time of the attack. The publication
of her daughter’s photograph alongside individuals who were missing or dead had
been traumatic and had intruded into her daughter’s private and family life, as
well as her time at school.

4. The newspaper
said that when notified of the inaccuracy by the complainant, it had
immediately offered a prominent apology: the following day, 25 May, it had
published a front-page reference, in a box, to an apology on page 2, as
follows:

In yesterday’s edition we published a picture of Lucy Cross
on the front page and page 4 and we referred to her as missing in the
Manchester attack. Unfortunately we got the picture and information wrong. The
picture was of [the complainant’s daughter] whose details were appropriated and
used to make a fake social media account. [She] was not at Manchester Arena at
the time of the attack and was not missing. We apologise to [her] and her
family for the upset and distress we have caused.

5. The newspaper
said that the article had been published in exceptional circumstances, in the
aftermath of a terror attack involving numerous children. At the time of
publication, there was no consideration of the Code issues at editorial level
because the story had been filed by a freelance agency, with whom it had a
longstanding and trusted relationship. The agency had obtained the story after
a Twitter account named “@_maddisonallen” had posted a photograph of the
complainant’s daughter and had falsely claimed that her name was “Lucy Hannah
Cross” and that she was missing following the attack. The newspaper said that
at the time of publication, it had no reason to believe that the information
was false.

6. The newspaper
said that it was a matter of significant regret that the article’s publication
had caused distress to the complainant’s daughter and her family. It said that
had the information been accurate and not part of a hoax, then publication
would have been justified in the public interest. The newspaper accepted,
however, that it had been misled by the contents of the Twitter account and
that publication had been in breach of Clause 2 and Clause 6.

Relevant Code Provisions

7. Clause 1
(Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion
must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate —
an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as
required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.

Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and
approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled
sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings.

Clause 6 (Children)*

i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school
without permission of the school authorities.

iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed
on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial
parent or similarly responsible adult consents.

iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material
involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children
or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a
parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's
private life.

Findings of the Committee

8. In the
exceptional circumstances of reporting on the aftermath of a terror attack, the
newspaper had relied upon information which it had obtained from a trusted
agency. While there was no reason to
doubt that the newspaper had acted in good faith, it was ultimately responsible
for the inaccuracy. The Committee also considered the vital importance of
taking sufficient care to ensure the accuracy of a claim that an individual had
been caught up in an incident of this kind, which could have significant
consequences for them and their family.

9. On receipt of
this information, the newspaper had taken no further steps to establish the
accuracy of the claims that had been circulated on the Twitter account. The
newspaper did not, for example, attempt to contact the Twitter account holder
or the family of the individual pictured. Given the fact that the story claimed
that “Lucy Cross” was missing following a terror attack, and particularly where
the photograph clearly showed a child, greater care should have been taken.
This represented a failure to take over the accuracy of the article, in breach
of Clause 1(i).

10. The article had contained a significant inaccuracy that
required correction and, given its nature, an apology. The Committee noted
favourably that in the following day’s edition, the newspaper had published a
front-page reference to an apology on page 2. This had identified the
inaccuracy and had been illustrated with the photograph of the complainant’s
daughter, to make readers aware of the correct position. The Committee was
satisfied that the publication had met the requirements of Clause 1 (ii) by
publishing a prompt and prominent apology. There was no further breach of
Clause 1 in relation to the remedial action taken.

11. The Committee turned to consider the complaint under
Clause 6 and Clause 2. Critical to the Committee’s considerations was the fact
that the breach of Clause 1(i), had resulted in the publication of material
which had related to the welfare of a child. In publishing this material on its
front page, without consent, alongside photographs of those who were missing or
dead in the attack, the newspaper had published information which had intruded
into the complainant’s daughter’s private life and into her time at school.

12. Newspapers play an important role in reporting on the
aftermath of a terror attack and raising awareness of the real impact of such
incidents on members of the public. However, the false information relating to
the complainant’s daughter clearly related to her welfare and intruded into her
time at school and her privacy, and there could be no public interest in
publishing this inaccurate information. The complaints under Clause 2 and
Clause 6 were upheld.

13. The Committee acknowledged that the publication of her
daughter’s photograph had caused the complainant and her family significant
upset. However, in circumstances where the complainant’s daughter was not
missing, this was not a case which involved the personal grief or shock of the
complainant, or her daughter. The terms of Clause 4 were not engaged.

Conclusion

14. The complaint was upheld.

Remedial action required

15. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required.

16. The newspaper had promptly published a correction in
print which identified the inaccuracy and made the correct position clear; it
also had included an apology, which the Committee considered was appropriate in
the circumstances. This action was sufficient to remedy the breach of Clause
1(i).

17. However, having upheld the complaint under Clause 2 and
Clause 6, the Committee considered what further remedial action should be
required. Given that the breach of Clause 1(i), had resulted in the publication
of material which had related to the welfare of a child, in an article that
identified individuals who were missing or dead following the attack, the
Committee considered that the publication of an adjudication was an appropriate
remedy.

18. The headline of
the adjudication must make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, and refer
to its subject matter; it must be agreed in advance. The photograph of the
complainant’s daughter had been published on its front page, as well as on page
4. However in considering the placement of the adjudication, the Committee had
regard to the fact that the newspaper had already published a front page
reference to an apology, identifying to its readers the correct position. As
such, the adjudication should appear on page 4 or further forward.

19. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as
follows:

Following an article published in the Daily Star on 24 May
2017, headlined “SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS”, Pauline Gorman complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Star breached Clause 2
(Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld
the complaint and has required the Daily Star to publish this decision as a
remedy to the breach.

On its front page, the newspaper had published a number of
photographs of individuals who had died, or were missing, following the terror
attack which took place at a pop concert in the Manchester Arena on 22 May
2017. One of the photographs was of the complainant’s daughter, accompanied
with the caption: “MISSING: Lucy Cross”.

The complainant said that her 13 year old daughter was not
missing: her daughter, who is not called Lucy Cross, had been at home at the
time of the attack. The publication of her daughter’s photograph in this
context had intruded into her daughter’s private and family life, as well as
her time at school.

The day after publication, the newspaper had published a
front-page reference to a page 2 apology for the inaccuracy. It said that it
had obtained the story from an agency, which had been misled by a Twitter
account that had posted a photograph of the complainant’s daughter with the
false name and claim that she was missing. The newspaper said that at the time
of publication, it had no reason to believe that the information was false.

The newspaper had relied upon information obtained from a
trusted agency; in doing so, the newspaper had published material which had
inaccurately claimed that the complainant’s daughter was missing. This had
resulted in the publication of inaccurate material relating to the
complainant’s daughter, without consent, which had intruded into her private
life and her time at school.

Newspapers play an important role in reporting on the
aftermath of a terror attack and raising awareness of the real impact of such
incidents on members of the public. In this instance, however, there was no
public interest in publishing the inaccurate claim that the complainant’s
daughter was missing. The complaints under Clause 2 and Clause 6 were upheld.

This website uses cookies that provide necessary site functionality and improve your online experience. By continuing to use this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Our cookies notice provides more information about what cookies we use and how you can change them.